Abstract
Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter), the current international legal framework has drastically changed. In its traditional understanding, aggression is ‘the supreme international crime’ aimed at protecting sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. On the other hand, the UN Charter endorses an understanding of peace in the negative sense, i.e. as mere absence of war. As human rights have gained momentum, they have helped reshaping the legal landscape, a phenomenon referred to as the humanization of international law. How do peace and aggression fit within the humanized legal framework? This article will investigate the effects of the humanization of international law on peace and aggression. Specifically, a new trend is emerging, whereby it seems that human rights, more than the maintenance of peace per se, are increasingly seen as the pivotal aim of the current legal framework. Ultimately, this analysis will question whether this is a welcomed development and will highlight its risks.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
